Talk:Jacques Doriot
In reviewing the the one reference to Doriot in Aftershocks, it's not clear at all whether he's head of state or head of government. Cogent non-textual arguments could be made either way: in OTL the Third and Fourth Republics were parliamentarian with the PoF being a mere figurehead and the PM (or PoC) having all the real power. Since WW France would have the 3rd as their most recent model, they could adopt that. On the other hand, after years under the Reich, a strong HoS might be desirable, or even fully presidential republic a la the U.S. :Doriot was such a useful, accomodating quisling that it would be a waste of his talents to give him a role where he couldn't work for a living. At the same time, a figurehead's job is to inspire, and Doriot would be an odd choice there. You'd want someone like Petain, who had a strong reputation for heroism. But it wouldn't be too easy to find such a person after a full generation of being occupied and at best resisting by being complete bastards to the occupiers, and as you say it's all conjecture. Turtle Fan 20:23, October 20, 2011 (UTC) So, I'm not sure what to do with regard to categorization as far as Doriot here goes. One possbility is to revert the edits to put back the references to his being a president, and then put in the literary note "We're not sure he's HoS, we just did that to put him SOMEWHERE." TR 17:24, October 20, 2011 (UTC) :How about "Doriot's title in this timeline is never specified, nor is the constitutional makeup of this version of the Fourth Republic--whether it was parliamentary, presidential, or a mix of the two. In the absence of firmer evidence we are referring to Doriot as a President for simplicity's sake." Turtle Fan 20:23, October 20, 2011 (UTC) ::I think that works. TR 21:57, October 20, 2011 (UTC) I was going to say that the fact that Molotov mentioned Doriot's absence at the funeral suggests he's Head of State, as that's who ordinarily attends state funerals, either in person or more often through a representative. But now that I think of it, that's not how this funeral worked, is it? The UK and Japan both sent their Prime Ministers; maybe the PMs were instructed to deliver the condolences of their monarchs--one would expect that, at least--but it's exceedingly rare for the monarch of the UK to send the PM to stand in his or her place at such things. Not sure about the Japanese Emperor. Hitler was both head of state (Reichsprasident) and head of government (Reichskanzler) for nearly all of his reign. Turtledovean tropes are clear that his various successors in various timelines likewise wear both hats at once, so Dornberger could have been there in either role. Molotov was probably neither: According to the Soviet constitution in place at the POD, the HoS was Chairman of the Presidium of the Supreme Soviet, and the HoG was Chairman of the Council of People's Commisars (changed to Chairman of the Council of Ministers in 1946 in OTL, which may or may not be relevant, of course), but the only title we ever get for him is General Secretary, a party leadership office. This party leadership office was the one that really counted, of course. Of the men who were really in charge in the Soviet Union, only one, Brezhnev, was CPSS, and only for about half his term. And only three were CCPC or CCM: Lenin, who had left office (ie died) before the Constitution technically went into effect; Stalin, who held the office for only twelve of his twenty-nine years at the helm; and Kruschev, who held the office for six of his nine years as party leader. Gorbachev never held either office, and neither did the two short-lived gray men who led the party between Brezhnev and Gorbachev. ::Actually, looking it up, Gorbachev was indeed President of the USSR from 1990 to 1991, the entire time that particular office existed, and did function as HoS. And was also the CPSS and the CSS from 1988 until leaving office, so he was HoS for most of his time, anyway. :::Huh, the Big W led me astray. Turtle Fan 02:51, October 21, 2011 (UTC) ::However, you are correct that before Gorbachev, Andropov and Chernenko weren't HoS, but you know who was? Andrei Gromyko. TR 21:57, October 20, 2011 (UTC) So no, that's no help. It did give me an excuse to brush up on the constitutions of some notorious totalitarian states, at least. Really it's confusing. I understand that a one-party state is very different from a multiparty state, but why bother having a Constitution that establishes government offices at the heads of state and government if the legal system is all about favoring a non-governmental official over both? If that's how you want it, why not just install the party leader as head of state and/or government so the office(s) won't be completely neutered? Turtle Fan 21:01, October 20, 2011 (UTC) :Happily the PRC figured out what a mess this is back in 1982, and combined the HoS with Party Leader. HoG is still separate, and simply doing a cursory review of duties, I'm not sure what the HoG brings to the table as it stands. ::And no sooner did they sort it out than they proceeded to crank the ambiguity up to eleven by following Deng for the next decade. . . . ::Commander in chief of the military, too. Back in the day, you'd have three different people: the supreme political authority, the supreme military authority, and the supreme partisan authority. Eight or nine years ago it was considered a huge thing when Hu Jintao managed to don all three hats without anyone dying. (Jiang Zemin, his predecessor, came to power through peaceful means, but only after 'his predecessor died of natural causes.) ::If memory of the research I did on my thesis serves, the Premier is kind of like the Vice President of the United States: He has a few constitutional duties, none of which will take up too much of his time, and then the President can delegate more responsibility as he sees fit. He might end up as a full partner in the administration, as Bush the Elder and Gore were, or he might end up being told to go outside and play while the grownups talk business most of the time, as happened to Quayle and more often than not seems to be happening with Biden. What he can't do is effectively take over the administration, as Cheney did. ::The selection process is also a lot like that for the Vice President used to be, in the nineteenth and early twentieth centuries, when a party's presidential nominee would not necessarily get the running mate he wanted. (Taylor hated Fillmore, McKinley had no great use for your namesake, FDR fought and lost a battle to keep Simpson on the ticket and wanted no part of Truman, Johnson made Kennedy's skin crawl--and that's just talking about winning tickets.) (And now that I think of it, all four of these unwanted running mates wound up succeeding to the Presidency themselves. Huh.) If the President is strong enough at the time of the National Party Conference to ram his agenda through, he gets one of his own people as Premier, as Hu always has with Wen Jiabao. When he's weaker and needs to do a lot of horse trading, he might accept a compromise candidate whom he doesn't want. Naturally, in the former case he's likely to give the Premier a much larger role than he is in the latter. ::This was true back in the bad old days of totalitarianism and win-or-die politics, too: More often than not, "Get rid of Zhou" was near the top of Mao's wish list, but he never could manage it. At one point he even created the office of Vice Premier in an attempt to undermine Zhou's authority, and foolishly filled it with someone a lot less reliable than Zhou in the loyalty department, but that's another story. Turtle Fan 02:51, October 21, 2011 (UTC) :In itself, I find it more amusing than anything. For the purposes of our little project here, trying to convey say, Molotov's importance even though he was neither HoS nor HoG in Col. is kind of a pain. TR 21:57, October 20, 2011 (UTC) ::We've yet to go into enough detail with our articles on Soviet leaders to have a problem. But sooner or later we'll have to cross that bridge. Turtle Fan 02:51, October 21, 2011 (UTC)